Civil Enforcement CCJ set aside. Wording help please.

vincentvega27

Castle said:

1505grandad said:

"14. 'ABC Parking Solutions' is written at the top of the signs...."  -  I assume that the sign linked above relates to the car park you actually parked in  -  if so the sign states:-

"ABC Car Park Solutions Limited"

And according to Google and Companies House, "ABC Car Park Solutions Limited" has never existed.

OK is that quite significant in legal terms? CEL are looking more and more stuffed aren´t they at this point?

How about this wording now?

14. 'ABC Car Park Solutions Limited' is written at the top of the signs where the disputed terms are stated. Therefore, those terms and the licence to park is made by the principal, ABC Car Park Solutions LTD. ABC Car Park Solutions LTD is not, nor has ever been even a registered company in the United Kingdom.  https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/search?q=ABC+Car+Park+Solutions+LTD

15. Therefore, unlike in ParkingEye v Beavis, this Claimant has placed their service, and themselves, in the position of an agent/broker/middle-man, making the bargain for another party and collecting monies (the parking fees from the machine) for that party. What is more the legitimacy of said party appears to be questionable. The Defendant avers that this Claimant does not retain nor pay VAT on the tariffs and they have no possessory title in this land.  Fatally to their claim, the Claimant made no offer of a contract to the driver, at all.  The Claimant is put to strict proof if their position is to the contrary of that stated by this Defendant, who takes the point that the principles established by the authority of Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169 apply and there is no contractual relationship between this Claimant and the Defendant. (See Exhibit XXX)

Coupon-mad

I would advise not to put ANY of that extra info about ABC.  Just stick with the usual argument that the parking contract is clearly offered by ABC.

I think saying they are either defunct or never existed sends that argument up in a puff of smoke.  Don't do it, it's too clever and not needed.

vincentvega27

Coupon-mad said:

I would advise not to put ANY of that extra info about ABC.  Just stick with the usual argument that the parking contract is clearly offered by ABC.

I think saying they are either defunct or never existed sends that argument up in a puff of smoke.  Don't do it, it's too clever and not needed.

Ok I think I´m pretty much done, exhibits etc are now included.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G7EYaiDW857rWsvdaS88muXIQAH2hgJd/view?usp=sharing

Only questions I now have are:

Do I need an exhibit here for the beavis case in p14, there wasn´t one in the orig template. I have an exhibit for the beavis case for a later argument but it only includes 3 of the 4 paragraphs mentioned in p14.

14. In support of my contention that the sum sought is unconscionably exaggerated and thus unrecoverable, attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'). Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of a template letter and 'would appear to be penal.

And should my conclusion include more detail? ie highlighting the new arguments we have have included.

Thank you kindly!

Coupon-mad

You just put those paragraphs from the Beavis judgment in a sheet of paper and give it an Exhibit number.

Don't know what your conclusion even says!  There are 13 pages to this thread and we never read back.  Show us the latest draft.

vincentvega27

Coupon-mad said:

You just put those paragraphs from the Beavis judgment in a sheet of paper and give it an Exhibit number.

Don't know what your conclusion even says!  There are 13 pages to this thread and we never read back.  Show us the latest draft.

Hi, I I did include the latest draft it´s in the form of a link:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G7EYaiDW857rWsvdaS88muXIQAH2hgJd/view?usp=sharing

I do already have the Beavis case as an exhibit but in the template I used it´s mentioned twice in 2 separate arguments and only one has an exhibit. I was wondering if there´s a reason for this or if it´s a mistake.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

The Conclusion is fine.

But add to para 35 that you ask the learned Judge to please read the persuasive Judgment from HHJ Murch from August 2023 and apply the same outcome, given this is the same Claimant, exact same woefully generic POC and in the Chan case, full costs were awarded to the motorist as well as striking the claim out.

Remove Exhibit 1 and remove ALL those photos of the car park.  They make it look like there were loads of signs!  Eek, remove them.

Without those, this is a great example of a WS that uses the HHJ Murch judgment et al. If you can show us a final version minus Exhibit 1 and minus all those photos of signs, I might use yours as an exemplar!

vincentvega27

Coupon-mad said:

The Conclusion is fine.

But add to para 35 that you ask the learned Judge to please read the persuasive Judgment from HHJ Murch from August 2023 and apply the same outcome, given this is the same Claimant, exact same woefully generic POC and in the Chan case, full costs were awarded to the motorist as well as striking the claim out.

Remove Exhibit 1 and remove ALL those photos of the car park.  They make it look like there were loads of signs!  Eek, remove them.

Without those, this is a great example of a WS that uses the HHJ Murch judgment et al. If you can show us a final version minus Exhibit 1 and minus all those photos of signs, I might use yours as an exemplar!

OK great stuff. From panic to exemplar, what a turnaround.

do i need to add any exhibits in paragraph 14?  The beavis argument is exhibited in para 23 but not 14. Still unclear on this

To submit this should I do it as supporting witness statement and will I need a draft order? My hearing is in about 2.5 weeks and so far I have only submitted a defence which does not include some of our new arguments.

Will get on to all these final touches tomorrow morning first thing.

Thank you

1505grandad

"The Civil Enforcement VS Ming Tak Chan Judgment against this Claim"
As noted on other posts by @Le_Kirk don't forget to add the word "is" that missing after "Judgment" 

Coupon-mad

No you don't have to exhibit Beavis at all but we tend to exhibit the relevant paragraphs just to nudge the Judge in the right direction.

vincentvega27

Coupon-mad said:

No you don't have to exhibit Beavis at all but we tend to exhibit the relevant paragraphs just to nudge the Judge in the right direction.

OK thanks. I assume I´m keeping the close up photo of the car park sign right? Just getting rid of the rest?

And is there any special way I need to submit this (eg draft order) or simply just email it to the court and CEL? It may been seen as late evidence.

Thanks